Justin Serpico 
, Oct 14, 2007; 08:29 p.m.
I haven't shot hockey as more than a spectator in about 5 years. And even then
it was only collegiate and later on adult recreational. Shooting professional
hockey is a bit different, and as I'm always saying on here practice and hone
your craft before blaming the tools. Quite honestly the tools worked amazingly
well. i was off a bit on some framing and took me a few periods to get used to
the speed of pro players.
Hockey is tough because there are no good angles. You always have glass, nets or
distance between you and the players. Add in problems moving around, and the
seams (metal bars) between the glass and you have very constricted shooting
situation. Football and baseball are the complete opposite. Even basketball only
has the indoor lighting issue no glass or line of sight restrictions.
Hockey is weird...you always seem to have the wrong lens, so shooting with 2
bodies is a must. If you are behind the net, a 20-30mm lens can work for near
net, and a 300-400mm lens can work for cross ice at the same time.
These shots were taken with the K10D and 50-135 2.8 at f/2.8 and ISO 1250. I can
say the 50-135 is a solid lens. the AF is fast and if I need to i can still
mount it on the ist D since it's fully backwards compatible. It's really hard to
judge the overall quality of a lens shooting in poor light, at high ISO, wide
open but I didn't notice any glaring issues with this lens.
This shot was taken with the Sigma 20mm 1.8, unfortunately I was focused on the
goalie and the shooter is a bit out of the DOF at f/2 plus based on my position
the glass added some distortion. Wish I could take that one back and shoot at
f/4...I might try the 10-20mm Sigma next game for behind the net shots.
Finally one from the rafters with Tokina 80-200 and 1.4x TC at about 400mm
effective. This was taken with the Ist D at ISO 3200 and has been "denoised"
i've seen worse from "professional" sports cameras, and in the papers at that.
So while not impressive not horrible from an editorial standpoint.
Matthew McManamey , Oct 14, 2007; 10:01 p.m.
Wow, I haven't shot a hockey game in 12 years. This shot is from the first game I shot. I
know I had better ones, but this one was handy. Probably a P30t with a 28-80mm F3.5
Tak-A and p3200 T-Max film (also had a spotmatic with a longer slower lens). That's
when I learned for future games, if I talked to the right person, I could get into the penalty
box so I wouldn't have the extra glass in my shot, I'm just stuck there the entire game. I
was kinda self concious about the fact that I couldn't afford fast glass - the local paper
photog was in the box with a monopod and a lens the size of my leg. Then a reporter
friend of mine
pointed out the 'official' team photog. He must have been DRIPPING with talant to get a
gig like that because his equip. sucked. Looked like a wide on one body and a 50mm and
a 3x tc on the other. Made me feel better...
...when someone stumbles upon this exchange four years from now via a Google
search, they are going to say. 'Yeah... sure you had better shots...'
Wichita Thunder v. S.A. Iguanas, 1995
Miserere Mei , Oct 14, 2007; 11:14 p.m.
All I can say is that your shots wide open are a lot sharper than those of the DA 50-200mm wide open at the long end. Great WB, by the way. That last shot with the Sigma 20mm 1.8 is very good; I'm just left wondering where all the other players have gone to :-)
Justin Serpico , Oct 15, 2007; 12:26 a.m.
Mis, the game ended in a 4 on 4 sudden death (5min I think), which was still tied, and a 5 man shootout. That was a shot from the shootout. Rats lost 2-1. I have the winning shot from cross ice it was taken with the 50-135 which is just too darn short. Had I taken it with the 400mm it would have been usable...gonna be an interesting year :).
I've seen the wide angle effect used in several shots I've really liked so I'm wondering how wide is too wide. The 20mm is nice because it's fast but I think at ISO1600 I could get away with the 10-20mm at f/4.
Matt, unfortunately, at the Times Union Center it's all glass unless I'm missing something, even the penalty boxes. Only spot that isn't is the bench and I was clearly told, "you have free access to everywhere but the ice and the benches themselves"...there is some glass between the benches that photogs can use but seems rather useless as the angle isn't great. Glass also knocks a 1/3-1/2 stop of light so it would be beneficial to shoot open. But that rafters help a bit with that. Later in the season I might inquire about taking a step stool to get over the glass at the bench area...i'm thinking there might be some liability issues though, such as if I get hit with a puck and fall off the ladder.
28-80mm would work behind the goal but on the benches/penalty box/redline it would be short. I figure a 100-300mm lens would be ideal there. the 50-135 covers inside the blue line to goal pretty well on 1.5x crop. I wish I had a 300mm 2.8 from the rafters that would be ideal for getting good floor coverage quickly.
BTW, not a bad shot..I have quite a few sports shots like that on film...I miss black and white, now you can't even think of converting a photo to B&W in sports with digital media...no one wants to see a black and white sports shot, too bad because the film grain/digital noise on the Ist D looks pretty good in B&W and I've seen a lot of B&W shots that I really like, sad this will be a dying medium of journalism.
Scot Tremblay , Oct 15, 2007; 02:00 a.m.
Nice work Justin. I played a lot in my youth and I must say your first four shot do give a sense of being right in the action.
Taken at f2.8 you say?? I cannot get used to the DOF in digital, being a die-hard (But giving it to digital) film user myself.
Thanks for posting as a K10D is on my shopping list and it is nice to see what they can do.
Justin Serpico , Oct 15, 2007; 05:22 a.m.
Scot the difference on the 1.5x digital sensors is only a stop.
So f/2.8 is more like f/4. If you really need to isolate that 1 stop is a big deal, but in most cases a little extra DOF isn't a bad thing, covers up slight focusing mistakes.
But what you might be forgetting is that DOF is both a function of aperture, focal length and distance to subject.
The further away you get the closer to hyperfocal you get with any given lens length.
Good example..I'm shooting the long jump at a track meet. the other photogs are using 400mm lenses at f/2.8 from far away, I decide to blow the background out a bit more so I move in closer with a 200mm f/2.8. We get the same framing but my background is more blown out.
Renato Aranghelovici , Oct 15, 2007; 06:05 a.m.
Justin, I am a bit puzzled about your last paragraph:
"the other photogs are using 400mm lenses at f/2.8 from far away, I decide to blow the background out a bit more so I move in closer with a 200mm f/2.8. We get the same framing but my background is more blown out. "
An optics law say that for ANY focal length, IF the subject has the SAME SIZE in the final image, the DOF is the same and is only aperture dependent. What change is the working distance and the perspective.
What puzzle me is if there any relation between DOF and background rendering. From what you claim seems same DOF can led to different background rendering.
Bob Lazzarini , Oct 15, 2007; 07:53 a.m.
Justin,
Really great shots!
I'm wondering where all the noise went to! :0)
Mathew
I think you forgot to turn off the italics.
Cheers!
Michael S. , Oct 15, 2007; 10:40 a.m.
Italics off.
Well done. My favorite is the 4th -- puck going into the boards -- with the action and the faces of players and fans. You even got a photog in that one ... but she sure didn't get that shot.
Lindy Stone , Oct 15, 2007; 11:44 a.m.
Great info Justin,
Two questions concerning your 50-135mm 2.8 SDM:
How does it compare to your 80-200mm 2.8 AF lens?
Is it slower to focus on your IstD compared to K10D?
Lindy
